Terry V Ohio

Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous.

Facts. The officer noticed the Petitioner talking with another individual on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then talk some more. The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were “casing” a store for a potential robbery. The officer decided to approach the men for questioning, and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

Issue. Whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (”Constitution”)? Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (”Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed.

Dissent. Justice William Douglas (”J. Douglas”) dissented, reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess. Concurrence.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...
A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terryv. Ohio, 392 U.S.1. The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence. When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her.
In October of 1963, a police...

...﻿Strayer University
TerryvOhio
LEG 420
Lisa Silva
In this case John Terry was seen by an officer, seeming to be casing a store for a robbery. “The Petitioner, John W. Terry was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.” The officer finally decided to approach the men for questioning, after observing them for quite a long time and given the nature of the behavior the officer decided to perform a quick search of the men before questioning. A quick frisking of the Petitioner produced a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The petitioner, Terry took the case to the Supreme Court, because he believed that the search was illegal and without a warrant. He lost his case 8 to 1, and the search was found to be legal because there was cause to believe the Officer might be in danger and the citizens might be in danger.
There are five key aspects that the case represents, and these are, the fact that this case can lead to questioning the violation of the fourth amendment right, questioning the evidence found in this search, how does search and seizure apply, when and what determines when an officer feels as if he might be in danger, as well as the evidence that was found in this...

...Terryv. Ohio Case Project |
|
|
|
|
Victoria Swannegan |
12/2/2010 |
|
In 1968 a case called Terryv. Ohio took place. This case made a big impact on the police departments of the United States by giving officers more reasons to make an arrest. A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon reasonable suspicion that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires probable cause that a suspect committed a criminal offense.
A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two stranger on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The...

...
On October 31, 1963, Detective Martin McFadden was in plain clothes, patrolling his downtown beat in Cleveland, Ohio, an area that he had been patrolling for shoplifters and pick-pocketing the last 30 years. At 2:30 PM, he noticed two unknown individuals, John Terry and Richard Chilton acting suspiciously, standing on a street corner. One of the men walked away and stopped to look in a nearby store window, continued walking, and on the way back stopped to look in the same store window before rejoining the other man.
After a short conversation between the two, the second man traced the exact steps of the first, examining the same store window. The two men repeated this sequence five to six times, each. While the two men were talking with one another, a third man named Carl Katz joined them. After a brief discussion, Katz quickly left, and was then joined again by Terry and Chilton.
By now, Officer McFadden suspected these men of planning a stickup and decided to approach them. He identified himself as a law enforcement officer and asked them their names. When the men responded only by “mumbling something,” Officer McFadden grabbed Terry, turned him around to face the other two men and patted the outside of his clothing.
Once McFadden felt a handgun in Terry’s coat pocket, and commanded them into the store. He removed Terry’s coat, removed a revolver and patted down the outer clothing of the two other men...

...﻿Running head: Terryv. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
Case Brief of Terryv. Ohio
392 U.S. 1
October 4, 2014
Facts
At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes, Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times, pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route, the two men would meet on the corner; on several occasions the two men were joined by a third man (Katz), who left very quickly. Detective McFadden had specifically worked this downtown beat for 30 years concentrating on shoplifters, pickpocketers and suspected the men were going to hold up the store. Detective McFadden approached the three men and asked them for their names. The men mumbled something and Detective McFadden spun Terry around, patted down the outside of his clothing and found a pistol. Detective McFadden was unable to remove the pistol and ordered all three men in the store, to stand against a wall with their hands up. Once in the store the Detective removed Terry’s overcoat and secured the firearm. The Detective performed the same pat down on Chilton and Katz, neither time putting his hands under the outer garments of the suspects, until he felt a gun and at...

...Arizona v Johnson (2009) 129 S.Ct. 781
Date of Judgment: January 26, 2009
INTRODUCTION
In 2002, Lemon Montrea Johnson was the passenger in the backseat of a car stopped for a traffic violation. Johnson was charged with; inter alia, possession of drugs and possession of a weapon by a felon. These items were discovered during a protective pat-down search of Johnson. Johnson was convicted by the trial court. Johnson argued that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court was in error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. He argued that he had been unlawfully “seized” because being a passenger in a vehicle does not automatically constitute “seizure.” He furthered argued that even if he had been “seized,” that by the time Officer Trevizo searched him he was no longer “seized” as their conversation had become consensual. Furthermore, the evidence should not be considered because the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and because the officer had no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring as mandated by TerryvOhio.
On September 10, 2007, the Arizona Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The court concluded that Trevizo had no right to pat Johnson down even though she believed he was armed and dangerous. The court held that Johnson, although legally detained, had evolved into consensual conversation with officer Trevizo regarding his gang...

...ISSUE:
The issue in Terryv. Ohio was whether a search for weapons without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search under the fourth amendment. In other words, is it always unreasonable for a police officer to seize a person and subject him to a limited search unless there is probable cause for an arrest?
RULE:
Police conduct under certain circumstances was not favorable to the warrant requirement because the immediate actions of the officer was predicated upon on-the-spot observations were necessary. Before this the fourth amendment did not apply as this is not triggered because this is a minor inconvenience, it is not a seizure of a person, and a frisk does not equal a seizure
ANALYSIS:
On October 31, 1963 while on patrol downtown, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden, saw two men John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on the street corner and acting in a way that felt suspicious to detective McFadden. Detective McFadden observed these two men walking back and forth in front of the same window to a store, constantly looking back and forth. These men did this about five or six times before another man came and had a brief conversation, then left. McFadden believed these individuals were “casing the place out,” so he followed the men a few blocks away and stopped them. He immediately identified himself as a police officer and then began frisking John Terry....

...past cases which have also dealt with the scope and operation of various stop and identify statutes. In Brown v. Texas (1979), the Court had rejected a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute, based on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Court ruled that the initial stop was not based on specific, objective facts establishing reasonable suspicion to believe that the suspect was involved in criminal activity. However, unlike the Brown case, Justice Kennedy stated that Hiibel’s stop was based on reasonable suspicion, and therefore satisfied the Fourth Amendment. Sheriff Dove was responding to a call which reported an assault of a woman by a man in a red and silver GMC truck on Grass Valley Road. When the officer arrived at the scene, he found the woman sitting inside the truck, and the man appeared to be intoxicated. The officer observed skid marks in the gravel by the truck, which led him to suspect that the truck had come to a sudden stop.
In Terryv. Ohio (1968), the Court recognized that an officer’s reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity permits the officer to detain the person for a limited amount of time and take additional steps to investigate further. Based on the principles of the Terry decision, Justice Kennedy stated that the Nevada statute, which requires a suspect to disclose his name in the course of a valid Terry stop, was...